Senator Barnett's supplementary comments
In these additional comments I propose a targeted and
tightly controlled pilot scheme to meet a demonstrated labour force need in a
certain area over a given period.
Based on evidence to the committee, it is likely that the
pilot would confirm the view that rather than acting as job-takers, such
schemes could not only boost investment in a region but also employment.
The committee's report contains much to commend it, and many
of the conclusions drawn from the evidence presented to members are both
reasonable and justified. Whether or not a systemic and widespread labour
shortage currently exists is difficult to determine, but nobody denies that
shortages do exist in particular regions at particular times.[1]
Nor is there disagreement that the flow of labour currently relied on by
growers, primarily Working Holiday Makers (WHMs), is not assured. The existing
shortage at certain times and in certain regions combined with a predominantly
WHM labour force gives rise to serious concern and the need for action. The 'wait
and see' approach recommended by the majority is not supported.
The evidence presented to the committee makes it clear that
the pool of labour from which producers are drawing is relatively unstable. WHMs
provide an ever increasing slice of the labour required.[2]
While everybody agrees that WHMs make up an increasing proportion of the labour
pool, I am not as easily convinced of the robustness of this labour supply into
the future. Events outside the control of the Government (for example, an act
of nature or terrorism) could seriously diminish or disrupt the supply of WHM
labour, which alone would bring about a major shortage of workers. Were such an
event to occur during the harvest season, the result could be catastrophic to
Australian growers. It is foreseeable that such an event could disrupt tourist
traffic, including WHMs, for more than one season, compounding the desperation
of growers. In addition because WHMs make up an ever-increasing proportion of
seasonal horticulture workers they tend to remain for days or weeks rather than
months. They tend to 'disappear' with short or even no notice and this is
problematic for growers. Prudence requires that potential pitfalls be
identified and planned for.
Labour shortages have serious economic consequences, not
least for the growers themselves. As identified in the committee report, the
World Bank has recently reported that crop losses in Australia due to
labour shortage have been estimated at $700 million. While this is described as
a rough estimate by one researcher, others have verified that crop losses (and
at the very least, reduced value yields) do occur due to labour shortage.[3]
These supplementary comments arise not from any particular
disagreement with the evidence presented in the main report of the committee,
but rather the conclusions drawn from it. Like the majority report, I do not
seek to make what I regard as radical recommendations. However, I consider that
a carefully designed pilot program would be an appropriate precautionary
measure to mitigate the risk the committee has identified in relying too
heavily on the labour of holiday makers and to address the labour shortage
concerns in certain regions. Such a pilot, and any eventual scheme, should
operate only where a demonstrated need for labour exists in a particular
community. All the considerations identified in chapter 4 should also be
examined and addressed prior to commencement. A strict protocol will have to
apply. Seasonal workers should be paid in accordance with the Australian Fair
Pay and Conditions Standard and the relevant classification that applies in the
particular award or agreement operating in that workplace. Employers would need
to meet the travel costs to and from Australia. Any employer found to be in
breach of these arrangements would be subject to prosecution and unable to
access any such scheme again. The purpose and outcome of any seasonal labour
scheme is not to reduce wages but to meet a demonstrated need under strict
conditions.
The Canadian experience, described in an appendix to the
report, has been a long-standing and positive one. Other countries have enjoyed
similar successes, with economic and social benefits flowing between workers
and their home countries. Is Australia to be left behind?
As discussed in chapter 3, some of Australia's neighbours
face significant economic and social challenges, many of which seem likely to
worsen in coming years. Properly conceived and managed contract labour programs
have the potential to provide mutual benefit, and in the case of the
Asia-Pacific, dovetail with Australia's aid efforts. This being the case, a
pilot scheme should examine the feasibility of drawing labour not just from the
Pacific region, but also other areas including Papua New Guinea and East Timor,
two very close neighbours who are also heavy consumers of Australian aid and
likely to benefit greatly from contract labour remittances. The latter
countries would be well positioned to meet the demonstrated needs in the Northern
Territory (primarily mango farms) and northern Western Australia (the Ord River
catchment).
In an era of widespread liberalisation of trade in goods and
many services, it seems odd to take a protectionist approach against the
relatively small, not to mention directly beneficial program such as the one
being discussed here. In certain areas, Australia does have a shortage of
skilled labour, but in certain areas it also has a shortage of semi and
unskilled labour. Western Australia for example is desperate to meet these
needs. A host of growers and their representative groups appeared before the
committee in support of a trial including Australian Citrus Growers Inc,
Yandilla Park Pty Ltd, Growcom, and Horticulture Australia Ltd. These groups,
which collectively represent large numbers of growers, were supported in their
calls for a trial by many others including Mr Peter Mares and Mr Nic Maclellan,
two of Australia's foremost experts on seasonal labour schemes. Countering one
of the most common criticisms of a possible scheme, Mr Mares submitted that
such a scheme would create jobs and investment in the local area concerned
rather than 'take jobs from locals'. In fact, as the committee report relates,
the Canadian experience has been that temporary labour schemes create 2.6 jobs
in the supply and processing sectors for every one in horticulture.[4]
Mr Mares tells of a shop owner in Ontario considering the spending of
temporary workers as being 'literally like Christmas in September' for local
business.[5]
Dr Manjula Luthria, representing the World Bank, also
presented strong evidence in favour of a scheme to the committee. The National
Farmers' Federation also supported a trial, but not in isolation:
'NFF believe that labour shortages being experienced in the
agricultural industry should not be countered by one action only and that there
are a variety of solutions, of which migration solutions are one component, for
resolving the problems facing regional Australia with regard to access to labour.
The most important thing that the NFF stress in our submission to this
committee is that the agricultural industry needs access to reliable and
efficient seasonal labour.' [6]
Although planning for a pilot scheme should begin as soon as
practicable, it is obvious that any substantial pilot is probably some way off,
and as suggested by the NFF, the problem is best addressed on more than one
front. The difficulties faced by growers can be helped more immediately by an
expansion of the Harvest Trail scheme. The Government is to be congratulated on
this initiative, which has been of enormous assistance to growers in many
regions, but more and better outcomes can be achieved from the program than
have been possible to date. Harvest Trail should be reviewed and expanded, with
a view to expanding the range of services available and streamlining the
process of referrals. This could be achieved in the relatively short term.
Senator Guy
Barnett
Senator for Tasmania
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page